Re: [PATCH] make st seekable again

[Bill Davidsen]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> >  critical user data.
> > 
> > In other words, it should work correctly or not at all. At the least this
> > should be a config option, like UNSAFE_TAPE_POSITIONING or some such.
> > And show the option if the build includes BROKEN features. That should put
> > the decision where it belongs and clarify the possible failures.
> 
> CONFIG_SECURITY_HOLES doesn't make sense.
> Better to just fix the security holes instead.

I think you're an idealist. If this were something other than tar it would
be simple, and you would be right. Well, you ARE right, but a change which
breaks tar, which many sites use for backups, is really not practical,
without a loophole until tar gets fixed. And as Alan noted, keeping track
of the physical position is very hard, and getting a tar fix might take a
while.

None of the choices is good; I see:
 - leave it the way it is
 - fix the hole and break tar
 - wait for FSF to fix tar, then fix the hole
 - try to fix it without breaking tar, which may not be really possible
   and could leave part of the problem and still break tar somehow
 - fix it, and leave the admin a way to build a kernel with the hole other
   than just reverting the fix

I proposed the last, I won't cry if no one else likes it, it just seemed
realistic for people who don't use certain features of tar.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@xxxxxxx>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/